Jharkhand High Court
Mohammad Fariduddin @ Md. Faruudin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.4012 of 2018
------
1. Mohammad Fariduddin @ Md. Faruudin, aged 47 years, Son of
Late Md. Amiruddin.
2. Tabassum Naz @ Tabbashum, aged 44 years, Wife of Mohammad
Fariduddin.
Both residents of House No.141, Islam Nagar, P.O.-Kapali, P.S.-
Chandil, District-Saraikella-Kharshwan.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Rupa Naidu @ V.Rupa Nayadu daughter of Late B.R.S. Naidu,
resident of 1/12, Indira Apartment, Munshi Mohallah, P.O.-Mango,
P.S.-Mango, District-East Singhbhum.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including
the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned court below framed
charges under Section 366, 313, 323, 342, 448 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner no.1 and under Section 323, 342, 448 & 506 of the Indian
1 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
Penal Code against the petitioner no.2 in ST Case No.343 of 2019 arising out of
C/1 Case No.2607 of 2015.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that from 02.09.2010 to
05.05.2014, the petitioner no.1 kidnapped the victim/complainant with intent
that she may be compelled to marry the petitioner no.1 against her own will or
knowledge and she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse which
amounts to commission of the offence punishable under 366 of Indian Penal
Code.
4. There is further allegation against the petitioners is that during the said
period, the petitioner no.1 voluntarily caused the victim then being pregnant
with a child to miscarriage without her consent and such miscarriage was not
being caused by the petitioner no.1 in good faith for the purpose of saving the
life of the victim; which amounts to commission of the offence punishable
under Section 313 of Indian Penal Code. On 05.05.2014 and 26.07.2015, both the
petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to the victim which amounts to the offence
punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code.
5. There is further allegation against the petitioners is that on 26.07.2015,
the petitioners wrongfully confined the victim which amounts to the offence
punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and on 26.07.2015, both the
petitioners committed house trespass by entering into house in possession of
the victim used as a human dwelling and thereby committed the offences
punishable under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code.
6. Lastly, the allegation against the petitioners is that on 26.07.2015, they
committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim with injury in her
2 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
person and to cause her assault and thereby they have committed the offence
punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cognizance has been
taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.08.2017. The petitioner
challenged the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2017 in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition. On 17.06.2023, the petitioners filed an application
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them, which was rejected by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur vide order dated 03.07.2023
and the petitioners were directed to appear physically on 17.07.2023 for
framing of the charge before the concerned court. The petitioners amended this
criminal miscellaneous petition in terms of the order dated 10.09.2024. On
24.08.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur framed
charges against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is
the husband of the petitioner no. 2 and they have been maliciously implicated
in this case by the opposite party no.2/victim for wrecking vengeance. It is next
submitted that the opposite party no.2 married the petitioner no.1 voluntarily
after converting her religion from Hindu to Muslim on account of love and
affection. The said marriage was dissolved on 30.05.2014 and this fact has been
suppressed by the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that the opposite
party no.2 filed Misc. Case No.235 of 2014 in the family Court, Jamshedpur
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance, but the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution; in terms of the order dated 03.02.2017. It is next
submitted that in the said petition of Misc. Case No.235 of 2014, the opposite
party no.2 has mentioned that she has changed her religion and converted to
Muslim on account of love and affection with the petitioner no.1 and
3 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
subsequently, the opposite party no.2 and petitioner no.1 married each other,
by taking the permission of petitioner no.2, who happens to be the first wife of
the petitioner no.1 and their marriage was solemnized at Islam Nagar Mosque.
But after three years, the behavior of petitioner no.1 changed and he started
neglecting the opposite party no.2, hence, the opposite party no.2 filed the
petition for maintenance.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and Another
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520, the learned counsel for the petitioners next
submits that the certified copy of the petition of Misc. Case No.235 of 2014 as
well as the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Family Court, Jamshedpur
being public documents of sterling quality, hence, the same can be considered
by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, if on the basis of such documents, an accusation against the accused
person of a case cannot be made out. It is next submitted that the continuation
of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and drawing attention of this
court to the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, FTC-
CAW, East Singhbhum in ST Case No.343 of 2019; it is submitted by the
learned Spl.P.P. that therein the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur has taken note of direct and specific allegation that the petitioner
no.1 took the complainant/victim/opposite party no.2 to a room and fed her
4 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
something on account of which the complainant became senseless and she was
subjected to physical contact forcibly and thereafter, the complainant came to
know that she was forcibly embraced into Islam and became pregnant, but her
pregnancy was terminated. The learned Special Judge, FTC-CAW, East
Singhbhum has also considered, in the said order, that on 26.07.2015, both the
petitioners trespassed to the house of the complainant, assaulted her,
ransacked the household articles and took away Rs.25,000/- and also gold
jewellery worth Rs.2,00,000/-. There is further allegation that on 10.10.2015, the
petitioner no.1 came to the house of the complainant and threatened her to
make physical relationship with him or else, he will kill her brother and the
victim also. The learned Special Judge, FTC-CAW, East Singhbhum has also
considered the contents of the Informatory Petition filed by the petitioner no.1
vide petition no.664 of 2014 wherein the petitioner no.1 has mentioned that the
marriage of the victim with the petitioner no.1 occurred because either the
complainant was suffering from some disease or her brother was suffering
from some disease and the petitioner no.1 assured her to cure the victim of her
miseries which led the victim to convert her religion and agreed to be the
second wife of the petitioner no.1 and the Informatory Petition submitted by
the petitioner no.1 also suggests that he contracted marriage with the victim
while she was suffering from some mental disease and she became normal
three years after the marriage with the petitioner no.1 and on the basis of such
admission of the petitioner no.1, the learned Special Judge, FTC-CAW, East
Singhbhum arrived at the conclusion that the victim was not in normal state
when she was made to marry with the petitioner no.1. The learned Special
Judge, FTC-CAW, East Singhbhum also considered the contents of the own
5 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
Informatory Petition of the petitioner no.1 wherein he has admitted that he
acted in such manner so that no issue can be born through the complainant to
protect the interest of the sons of petitioner no.1 born from his first legally
wedded wife and when there is such overwhelming evidence against the
petitioners; even assuming for the sake of arguments that the contents of the
petition of Misc. Case No.235 of 2014 is true, still the same is not sufficient to
absolve the petitioners of the accusations, for which charge has already been
framed and when the charge is that the victim was compelled to marry against
her own will, the admission of marriage by the complainant will be of no help
to the petitioner no.1. It is next submitted that a single sentence favoring the
petitioner no.1 from Misc. Case No.235 of 2014 cannot be extracted out of
context and the petitioners if wants to rely upon the contents of the petition of
Misc. Case No.235 of 2014 in support of their defence, as defence evidence, the
same can be done by the petitioners during the trial of the case but in that case,
the entire contents of the said document being the petition of Misc. Case
No.235 of 2014, will be taken into consideration including that the petitioner
no.1 claims to cure the brother of the complainant/victim within 6 months and
under such belief gradually, the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2
attracted to each other is also to be accepted as the evidence and the
appreciation of the evidence can only be done during the trial of the case and
not in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., hence, it
is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal
proceeding or the order by which the petition for discharge filed under Section
227 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected, more so, at the belated stage when trial of the
6 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
case has already begun, after framing of the charge. Hence, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that so far as the contention of the petitioner no.1 that the petition for
discharge filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has erroneously been rejected by
the learned Special Judge, FTC-CAW, East Singhbhum is concerned, it is a
settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 51 that when FIR makes out a case of commission of offence, an
order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused then must face trial.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation
against the petitioners of abducting the victim by deceitful means, inducing her
to go with him on the pretext of curing her brother, who was suffering from
some diseases and after feeding her something, which made her senseless, the
victim was ravished and was made to embrace Muslim religion without her
consent. There is also direct and serious allegation against the petitioner no.1 of
voluntarily causing the victim being pregnant with child to miscarry without
her consent. The allegations are direct and specific and also serious in nature.
The allegation against the petitioner no.1 and 2 of causing hurt, wrongfully
confining the victim and trespassing her house as well as criminally
intimidating her is also direct and specific. The contents of the petition
purported to have been filed by the complainant vide Misc. Case No.235 of
2014 which was dismissed for non-prosecution as contended by the petitioner
no.1; in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a document of such nature,
7 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
if the contents of the same is considered to be true in their entirety, the
accusations against the petitioners cannot stand, moreover, as submitted by the
learned Spl.P.P., if the petitioners intend to use the same as their defence, they
can do so only during the trial of the case and in such a situation, the contents
of the entire petition will be read in evidence but not a sentence out of context,
from the same.
12. It is settled principle of law that that no mini trial can be conducted by
the high court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as has been
reiterated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors.
reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as
under:-
“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has
virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at
this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC.
As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini
trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under
Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the
application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.
(Emphasis supplied)
13. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of its power under
Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with as has been
held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the accusations against the
petitioners are of serious nature and triable by the Court of Sessions and the
learned Special Judge, FTC-CAW, East Singhbhum has already framed charges
and trial has already begun. At this belated stage, when the accusations are of
8 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
serious nature and there are enough materials which if considered to be true in
their entirety, then the offences for which charge has been framed is prima facie
made out against the petitioners.
15. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case
where the entire criminal proceeding or the other prayers of the petitioners
made in this Cr.M.P., be allowed in exercise of the power of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
17. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide
order dated 13.11.2019, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th of December, 2024
AFR/ Abhiraj
9 Cr. M.P. No.4012 of 2018
